Far from demanding statements of anyone, I’d like to see university presidents give up the practice of issuing statements on highly complex and deeply fraught conflicts and controversies – and I bet there are at least a few university presidents (at, e.g., Cornell, Harvard, Penn…!) who would agree with me.
In issuing a statement, the president must claim to speak on behalf of the university community as a whole, but must also take great care to not offend those members of the community who are not really in accord with the presumed universality of that whole. And the only way to not offend is to issue something so bland and generic and anodyne that it might as well be “sending thoughts and prayers.” And even then, the statement is likely to be offensive to at least some students or faculty, who will invariably discover an at least tacit support of A or B in the president’s failure to reference X or Y…
To be clear, I do believe that the university should be a place where students and faculty can study, question, discuss, and debate highly complex and deeply fraught issues and controversies. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to have university presidents routinely issuing faux consensus statements on such issues and controversies.
It's a bad trend. I don't mind the idea of a university president who is a genuine public intellectual but the reality (only a handful) has mostly been bad news (it's usually a self-important blowhard or someone who is just doing work on behalf of their institutional brand as they see it like Michael Roth.) Otherwise yes, these statements are so calculatedly even-handed that they do nobody any good, but that's because they have to be. All the Ronald Lauder types aren't going to be there the next day or the next day after that when the president and provost have to try and keep the peace; Lauder et al think that writing the checks gives them the right to demand the statements they want regardless of the managerial hell they're making for the people who are putatively in charge.
Well written and well argued. As a mostly trained amateur historian it is impossible to think clearly about the Israel/Palestine issue without knowing its history from the beginning (which anyone can do with a couple days of reading). It helps a lot to know a Palestinian exiled as a young man from Palestine. There are significant moral issues involved as any thoughtful person must acknowledge. I agree with you that Just War thinking may be the most helpful approach to both sides.
Far from demanding statements of anyone, I’d like to see university presidents give up the practice of issuing statements on highly complex and deeply fraught conflicts and controversies – and I bet there are at least a few university presidents (at, e.g., Cornell, Harvard, Penn…!) who would agree with me.
In issuing a statement, the president must claim to speak on behalf of the university community as a whole, but must also take great care to not offend those members of the community who are not really in accord with the presumed universality of that whole. And the only way to not offend is to issue something so bland and generic and anodyne that it might as well be “sending thoughts and prayers.” And even then, the statement is likely to be offensive to at least some students or faculty, who will invariably discover an at least tacit support of A or B in the president’s failure to reference X or Y…
To be clear, I do believe that the university should be a place where students and faculty can study, question, discuss, and debate highly complex and deeply fraught issues and controversies. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to have university presidents routinely issuing faux consensus statements on such issues and controversies.
It's a bad trend. I don't mind the idea of a university president who is a genuine public intellectual but the reality (only a handful) has mostly been bad news (it's usually a self-important blowhard or someone who is just doing work on behalf of their institutional brand as they see it like Michael Roth.) Otherwise yes, these statements are so calculatedly even-handed that they do nobody any good, but that's because they have to be. All the Ronald Lauder types aren't going to be there the next day or the next day after that when the president and provost have to try and keep the peace; Lauder et al think that writing the checks gives them the right to demand the statements they want regardless of the managerial hell they're making for the people who are putatively in charge.
Well written and well argued. As a mostly trained amateur historian it is impossible to think clearly about the Israel/Palestine issue without knowing its history from the beginning (which anyone can do with a couple days of reading). It helps a lot to know a Palestinian exiled as a young man from Palestine. There are significant moral issues involved as any thoughtful person must acknowledge. I agree with you that Just War thinking may be the most helpful approach to both sides.